Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-05 Thread memcached
Status: New Owner: Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium New issue 158 by marcolslaviero: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 What steps will reproduce the problem? 1. Download attached script 2. Start a memcached server on a UDP port 3. Ru

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-06 Thread memcached
Comment #1 on issue 158 by marcolslaviero: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 I omitted to mention that once the UDP channel stops responding, the memcached process consumes 100% cpu; in this way the bug indirectly affects users of the TC

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-06 Thread memcached
Updates: Owner: eric.d.lambert Comment #2 on issue 158 by eric.d.lambert: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-07 Thread memcached
Comment #3 on issue 158 by eric.d.lambert: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 Just FYI, was not able to reproduce this on mac using 1.4.5 with libevent 2.07-rc ... will take a look on linux when I get a chance. smacky:Downloads elambert$

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-07 Thread memcached
Comment #4 on issue 158 by marcolslaviero: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 Thanks for the feedback, apologies for supplying a PoC that didn't demo the issue sufficiently, that was pretty fail for a PoC. However, I believe the bug to st

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-07 Thread memcached
Comment #5 on issue 158 by eric.d.lambert: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 I think i have somewhat of an idea as to what is happening. The UDP connections behave a little bit different than TCP. At start up, the server creates a UDP "c

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-07 Thread memcached
Updates: Status: Accepted Comment #6 on issue 158 by eric.d.lambert: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 (No comment was entered for this change.)

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-10-08 Thread memcached
Comment #7 on issue 158 by marcolslaviero: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 Well spotted, I was indeed running the initial tests with -t 1. At least that clears up some minor confusion this side.

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-12-13 Thread memcached
Comment #8 on issue 158 by airat.halimov: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 possible the same cause as for: http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=106

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-12-14 Thread memcached
Comment #9 on issue 158 by airat.halimov: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 if you end up the message with "\r\n" - you won't be able to reproduce the bug.

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2010-12-14 Thread Eric Lambert
Yeah, the problem is due to how the server deals with a "large" (over 1024 bytes IIRC) malformed UDP messages (in this case malformed means no \r\n). I've had a fix for a while, just have not gotten around to getting a unit-test written and checking in the fix. On Dec 14, 7:20 am, memcac...@google

Re: Issue 158 in memcached: Single packet DoS on UDP channel

2011-08-07 Thread memcached
Updates: Status: Fixed Comment #10 on issue 158 by dorma...@rydia.net: Single packet DoS on UDP channel http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=158 The patch for 1.4.7 related to #106 fixes this guy too. Going to close out this bug and leave any further discussion on the